Listen to the article
Social Media Misuses Border Crossing Data to Exaggerate Australian Migration Figures
Border crossing statistics are being widely misinterpreted on social media platforms, creating a misleading picture of Australia’s immigration levels, fact-checkers have confirmed.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has issued a clarification that the dataset being circulated—showing supposedly record-high immigration numbers—does not accurately measure migration to Australia.
Multiple Facebook posts have recently featured time-series graphs claiming “immigrant arrivals hit new record high – one every 55 seconds,” warning that Australia is heading down “a very slippery slope” and calling for immigration cuts. These posts have gained significant traction online, fueling immigration debates.
The figures cited in these viral posts come from the net permanent and long-term arrivals (NPLT) component of the ABS overseas arrivals and departures dataset. However, experts stress this data was never designed to measure actual migration numbers.
“The NPLT figures primarily rely on traveler self-declarations at the border,” explained Abdul Rizvi, a former immigration department deputy secretary. “This creates significant accuracy issues when trying to determine actual migration levels.”
The ABS has explicitly warned against using this dataset as a migration measure, noting it frequently leads to double-counting. For example, an individual living in Australia on a three-year temporary visa who travels overseas multiple times “can count as a long-term visitor arrival many times, even though they only migrated here once,” according to an ABS statement.
Migration experts point to Net Overseas Migration (NOM) as the appropriate metric for measuring Australia’s migration levels. Unlike NPLT figures, NOM data doesn’t rely on travelers’ declarations at borders. Instead, it calculates the difference between international travelers who stay in Australia for 12 months or more and those leaving after staying for 12 months or more, within any 16-month window.
The discrepancy between these datasets is significant. In 2024, NPLT arrivals totaled 444,480 people, while the more accurate Net Overseas Migration figure was substantially lower at 334,565—a difference of nearly 110,000 people. This translates to 914 migrants per day according to official statistics, rather than the 1,214 suggested by the NPLT data cited in social media posts.
While both datasets have historically followed similar trends, with NPLT figures generally running higher than actual migration numbers, they diverged significantly in late 2021. For a period until early 2024, official migration figures were unusually higher than NPLT data. Since then, the gap has widened again, with NPLT figures now markedly higher and showing different directional trends than the official migration statistics.
Immigration policy experts note that this statistical misrepresentation comes at a sensitive time for Australia’s immigration debate. The federal government has recently announced measures to tighten visa requirements and reduce migration targets in response to housing pressures and infrastructure concerns.
Demographics specialists emphasize that accurate data is crucial for informed public debate on migration policy. The current misuse of statistics risks inflaming tensions around immigration without accurately representing the actual migration situation.
The ABS releases NPLT data monthly, with figures available up to August 2025, while the more accurate Net Overseas Migration statistics are published less frequently, with the latest figures covering the period ending March 2025.
Experts acknowledge that while NPLT data can serve as an early indicator of migration trends when analyzed alongside other datasets, it should not be used in isolation to draw conclusions about migration levels—a nuance often lost in social media discussions.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
22 Comments
The misuse of these border crossing statistics to fuel immigration debates is concerning. We need to have fact-based, nuanced discussions on these complex issues.
Absolutely, responsible reporting and analysis is key. Sensationalizing limited data can distort the real situation and lead to poor policymaking.
Interesting to see the ABS clarify the issues with using border crossing data to measure migration. Relying on self-declarations seems prone to inconsistencies.
Agreed, more robust data collection and analysis methods are needed to properly track migration trends. Policymakers should be cautious about drawing conclusions from such limited information.
This highlights the complexities in accurately tracking migration trends. Self-reported data at the border can be unreliable and may not paint the full picture.
It’s good the ABS has clarified the limitations of this dataset. Policymakers need to look beyond simple statistics to understand the real migration dynamics.
Interesting to see the nuance around how border crossing data is interpreted and the need for more robust measurement methods. Fact-checking is so important.
Agreed, accurate data and analysis is crucial for informed policy discussions around migration. Relying on partial information can lead to harmful misconceptions.
It’s worrying to see how social media posts have distorted these border crossing statistics. Fact-checking and transparency around data limitations are so important.
Yes, the ABS’s clarification is a good step. We need nuanced, evidence-based discussions around migration, not knee-jerk reactions to misleading data.
The ABS’s explanation of the NPLT data’s limitations is valuable. Relying on self-declarations at the border seems prone to inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Agreed, more rigorous data collection and analysis methods are needed to properly track migration trends. Policymakers should be cautious about drawing conclusions from such partial information.
Interesting to see the nuance around how border crossing data is interpreted. It’s important to look at the full context and not jump to conclusions based on selective statistics.
Agreed, accurate data and analysis is crucial for informed policy discussions around migration. The self-declaration issues highlight the need for more robust measurement.
This highlights the challenges in accurately measuring migration flows. Self-reported border data seems to have significant limitations that can lead to skewed perceptions.
Absolutely, policymakers need to look beyond simplistic statistics and dig deeper to understand the full context and dynamics at play. Sensationalism around partial data is counterproductive.
The misuse of border crossing statistics to exaggerate migration figures is concerning. We need fact-based, nuanced discussions on these important issues.
Absolutely, responsible reporting and analysis is crucial. Sensationalizing partial data can lead to harmful misconceptions that distort the real situation.
Concerning to see how social media posts have misused this border crossing data to stoke immigration debates. We need fact-based, nuanced discussions on these important issues.
Absolutely, responsible reporting and analysis is crucial. Sensationalizing partial data can lead to harmful misconceptions that distort the real situation.
This highlights the complexities in accurately measuring migration flows. Self-reported border data seems to have significant limitations that can skew perceptions.
Yes, the ABS’s clarification is a good step. Policymakers need to look beyond simplistic statistics and dig deeper to understand the full context and dynamics at play.